In the modern work environment, an employer’s responsibility is not limited to organizing work processes, but also includes ensuring a safe, supportive, and dignified workplace. One of the most common risks that undermine such an environment is mobbing, a colloquial term for workplace harassment, which can have serious consequences for employees as well as for the employer itself.
Although mobbing is being discussed more frequently, employers still face numerous uncertainties: what exactly constitutes harassment? Does every conflict amount to mobbing? When does certain behavior cross the line of what is permissible?
The Law on the Prevention of Harassment at Work provides a broad definition precisely in order to encompass all forms of conduct that may jeopardize an employee’s dignity and impair working conditions; however, this also requires employers to clearly understand the obligations arising from the law.
Recognizing and preventing mobbing is not only a legal obligation, but also a strategic necessity for any employer seeking a stable team, a healthy work environment, and reduced risk of litigation. In the following text, we examine the legal elements of mobbing and the types of conduct that may qualify as harassment, in order to provide employers with a clear basis for timely action and effective management of employment relationships.
What Is Workplace Mobbing?
Statutory Definition of Mobbing: A Broad and Comprehensive Approach
The statutory definition of mobbing is fairly broad and comprehensive, which is not accidental but rather a deliberate legislative choice. The reason for this lies in the need to encompass all potential forms of conduct and situations in the work environment that may constitute harassment. Accordingly, the Law on the Prevention of Harassment at Work provides that harassment (mobbing) includes:
- Any active or passive behavior directed toward an employee or a group of employees by the employer;
- That is repeated;
- That has the purpose or effect of violating the dignity, reputation, personal or professional integrity, health, or position of an employee; and
- That causes fear or creates a hostile, humiliating, or offensive environment, worsens working conditions, or leads to the isolation of the employee or the termination of employment.
Such a broad definition makes it possible to identify and sanction not only overt, but also subtle and concealed forms of workplace harassment.
Active and Passive Workplace Harassment
It is particularly important to emphasize that acts of mobbing may be both active and passive.
While active conduct most often involves overt attacks, belittling, insults, or the denial of rights, passive conduct is more subtle, yet no less harmful.
Examples of Active Workplace Mobbing
Active forms of harassment include various types of inappropriate communication, pressure, and disruption of interpersonal relationships, such as shouting, threats, exclusion from work-related activities, denial of resources, mockery, spreading false information, and other actions that undermine an employee’s personal or professional integrity.
They also include unjustified criticism, the assignment of inappropriate tasks, excessive supervision, denial of opportunities for professional development, as well as threats of dismissal, physical harassment, and the intentional creation of conflict and stress, all of which may seriously endanger an employee’s health.
Examples of Passive Mobbing
Passive harassment may manifest through:
- deliberate ignoring of an employee,
- avoidance of communication,
- exclusion from team meetings or activities in which other employees participate,
- withholding information necessary for performing work duties, and
- various forms of social or professional isolation.
Although often concealed, such behavior undermines an employee’s dignity over time and may have serious consequences for their psychological and professional well-being.
Why Is Repetition Crucial in Establishing Mobbing?
One of the key elements in assessing whether certain conduct constitutes mobbing is the repetition of actions.
Case law has taken the position that, for workplace harassment to exist, a specific action must be repeated at least twice, in order to distinguish isolated incidents from systematic and continuous negative conduct.
When Can a Single Act Constitute Mobbing?
Although mobbing is most commonly associated with repeated behavior, there are situations in which a single act may have long-term negative consequences for an employee.
An example is the transfer of an employee to a position that does not correspond to their qualifications and competencies, which may permanently undermine their professional integrity, reputation, and position.
In such cases, even a single act may be considered workplace harassment, provided that the other elements of the statutory definition of mobbing are also met. In other words, the mere transfer of an employee to a position inconsistent with their qualifications and competencies would not in itself constitute mobbing; rather, all statutory elements of mobbing must be fulfilled.
Violation of Dignity and Professional Integrity as the Core of Mobbing
Regardless of whether the conduct is active or passive, the defining feature of mobbing is that the actions taken toward an employee have the purpose or effect of violating the employee’s dignity, reputation, personal and professional integrity, health, or position.
Such actions:
- create a hostile, humiliating, or offensive environment,
- worsen working conditions,
- affect the employee’s mental and emotional state, and
- may lead to isolation or pressure on the employee to leave the workplace.
This is the essence of statutory protection – to ensure a work environment in which employees feel safe, respected, and treated with dignity.
What Conduct Does Not Constitute Mobbing?
Workplace mobbing does not include individual acts of the employer that decide on rights and obligations arising from the employment relationship, the denial or restriction of statutory or contractual rights that are protected through separate legal procedures, nor measures of work discipline and actions undertaken to ensure occupational safety and health.
For example, if an employee refuses to wear personal protective equipment at the workplace and thereby knowingly exposes themselves to danger and violates occupational safety and health rules, the employer may, under certain conditions and in accordance with the law, issue a warning of the existence of grounds for termination. Such a warning could not be considered workplace harassment, and the employee would not enjoy protection under the Law on the Prevention of Harassment at Work. Instead, should the employer subsequently terminate the employment contract, the legality of the dismissal could be examined in a labor dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Law.
Furthermore, mobbing does not include discrimination, which is addressed under separate legislation, nor occasional differences of opinion, work-related problems, or conflicts, provided they do not have the purpose of violating or intentionally offending the employee.
Who Can Be a Perpetrator of Workplace Harassment?
A perpetrator of harassment may be the employer as a natural person, or a responsible person within the employer who is a legal entity, which constitutes vertical mobbing. However, harassment may also be carried out by any employee or group of employees against another employee, which is referred to as horizontal mobbing. In this way, the law recognizes that workplace harassment may arise both among employees and between the employer and an employee, making it important to identify both forms in a timely manner in order to ensure a safe and dignified work environment.
Employer and Employee Duties in Workplace Mobbing Cases
The employer is obliged, prior to the commencement of work, to clearly inform employees of the prohibition of harassment, their rights and obligations, as well as the employer’s own obligations, and to actively work through training and information-sharing on the recognition, prevention, and suppression of mobbing.
The employer is also responsible for protecting employees from harassment and bears liability for damage caused by harassment committed by a responsible person or another employee, while retaining the right to subsequently seek reimbursement of the paid damages from the perpetrator.
On the other hand, an employee has the right to be informed in writing of the prohibition of harassment and to seek protection from the employer against any conduct that constitutes mobbing. At the same time, the employee is obliged to refrain from harassment and from abusing the right to protection and bears responsibility if they intentionally initiate proceedings without grounds for personal gain or in order to cause harm to another person.
What Should Be Done When Workplace Harassment Is Reported?
When an employee becomes aware of conduct that they reasonably believe constitutes workplace harassment, they have the right – and in certain situations the obligation – to initiate protection proceedings by notifying the authorized person within the employer’s organization.
1. When the Suspicion Relates to Another Employee
In situations where the alleged harassment was committed by another employee, the employer is obliged, within three days, to propose mediation as a means of resolving the disputed relationship.
The employee who considers themselves subjected to harassment, the employee identified as the alleged perpetrator, and the employer jointly select a mediator – a person who enjoys the trust of all parties. The mediation procedure is urgent, confidential, and aimed at achieving a prompt resolution, and it is most often completed within eight working days. Mediation is also a prerequisite for subsequently filing a lawsuit.
2. When the Alleged Harasser Is a Responsible Person or the Employer
If the harassment is carried out by a responsible person within a legal entity – such as a director – or by the employer as a natural person, it is not mandatory to initiate proceedings with the employer. Instead, it is possible to immediately initiate court proceedings.
In such cases, the employee may request mediation directly from that person or, without prior mediation, initiate proceedings before the competent court within six months from the last act of harassment.
3. How Mediation Works
The mediator conducts joint and separate meetings, conveys proposals, and offers suggestions for possible solutions, but may not impose a decision on the parties. If the mediator determines that there is a risk of irreparable harm to the employee, they may propose that the employer introduce temporary protective measures for the duration of the procedure.
The procedure ends with a settlement agreement, a decision to discontinue the process, or the withdrawal of one of the parties. The settlement may include measures to stop the harassment and recommendations to the employer – including the transfer of an employee to a different work environment – provided that such measures are in accordance with the law and the employer’s business policy.
4. What If Mediation Fails?
If mediation does not result in a resolution and there are grounds to suspect harassment or abuse of rights, the employer is obliged to initiate proceedings to determine the responsibility of the employee accused of mobbing. The law provides for measures such as a warning, suspension from work without salary compensation, or permanent reassignment, while repeated harassment may constitute grounds for termination of the employment contract.
5. Urgent Measures to Protect the Employee
When there is an immediate threat to the employee’s health or life, the employer must take immediate action – either by temporarily transferring the employee accused of harassment or by removing them from work with salary compensation. If the employer fails to do so, the employee has the right to refuse to work while retaining the right to salary payment and is obliged to notify both the employer and the labor inspection authority.
Workplace Harassment: Judicial Protection for Employers
When internal protection mechanisms fail to produce results, or when the person directly responsible for the harassment is the employer or a responsible person within the employer’s organization, the employee may move to the next level – judicial protection.
The law provides that an employee who believes they have been subjected to harassment by an employer acting as a natural person, or by a responsible person within a legal entity, may file a lawsuit with the competent court within the prescribed time limit. The same right applies to an employee who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal protection procedure, provided that the lawsuit is filed within 15 days of receipt of the employer’s notice or decision.
What Can an Employee Seek Through a Lawsuit?
Before the court, an employee may seek legal protection, including:
- a declaration that they have been subjected to harassment,
- an injunction prohibiting further harassment or the repetition of such conduct,
- measures aimed at eliminating the consequences of harassment,
- compensation for material and non-material damages, and
- publication of the judgment.
In practice, this means that the court does not merely decide the issue of “whether harassment occurred,” but may also order specific measures that directly affect the working environment and the employer’s business operations.
Burden of Proof – A Key Specificity of These Disputes
The law introduces a rule of particular importance for employers: if the claimant makes it plausible that harassment occurred, the burden of proof shifts to the employer. In other words, the employer must prove that the disputed conduct did not constitute harassment – representing a significant procedural challenge if the employer lacks proper documentation, records, witnesses, or clearly implemented internal procedures.
Urgency of Proceedings and Statutory Deadlines
Judicial proceedings for protection against workplace harassment are, by law, urgent in nature. The court is required to forward the lawsuit to the defendant for response within 15 days, thereby reducing procedural uncertainty and accelerating dispute resolution.
In practice, this means that employers must react quickly, prepare relevant documentation, and organize their defense within a short timeframe.
Interim Measures – Protection That Takes Effect “Immediately”
During the proceedings, the court may order interim measures, either at the request of a party or ex officio, with the purpose of preventing violent conduct or the occurrence of irreparable harm. The most common measures include:
- a prohibition on approaching the employee,
- a prohibition on accessing the area surrounding the employee’s workplace.
Such measures may be ordered within eight days, and no appeal is permitted against a decision imposing them. For this reason, employers must be aware that interim measures may have an immediate and significant impact on work organization and business operations.
Workplace Mobbing in Serbian Case Law
One of the most significant procedural aspects in workplace harassment cases is the shifting of the burden of proof. In practical terms, this considerably facilitate the evidentiary position of employees in court proceedings related to workplace harassment, while at the same time placing employers in a more demanding procedural position.
Once an employee makes it plausible that they have been subjected to harassment, courts require the employer to prove the opposite – that the described actions did not constitute harassment or that they did not occur at all. In practice, this means that employers who lack properly documented communication, records, formalized procedures, or consistently applied internal policies often find themselves in a less favorable position.
Case law includes cases that illustrate how thin the line can be between everyday workplace disagreements and conduct that may truly constitute workplace harassment. One such example is a court dispute in which an employee presented a series of situations they experienced as humiliating – ranging from reassignment to another position, through disciplinary measures, to disagreements with the director regarding the organization of work processes.
The court assessed these circumstances as ordinary conflicts and actions falling within managerial authority, rather than systematic harassment. The decisive factor was that these events did not demonstrate an intent to humiliate, nor did they create an environment that would objectively indicate mobbing.
Overall, this case serves as a reminder that courts carefully distinguish an employee’s subjective perception from objectively provable harassment, and that dissatisfaction with work assignments, disciplinary measures, or communication with superiors is not, in itself, sufficient to meet the threshold of employer liability.
It is also noteworthy that courts very rarely uphold claims of mobbing where the disputed conduct can be explained by lawful enforcement of work discipline, the organization of work processes, or measures undertaken by the employer to ensure business efficiency.
However, once actions cross the boundary of justified management and begin to affect an employee’s dignity, reputation, or health, courts increasingly recognize such conduct as harassment.
Viewed as a whole, case law is consistent on one key point: mobbing is established only where there is a clear, consistent, and provable pattern of behavior by the employer or employees that exceeds the boundaries of ordinary workplace relations.
This also means that employers must pay close attention to the manner of communication, consistently apply internal procedures, and thoroughly document all work-related processes – since it is precisely such documentation that enables employers to maintain a stronger procedural position in the event of a dispute.
